Arnold Schwarzenegger And James Cameron back for another terminator

It seems like striving to be as politically unbiased by broadening the appeal to people across the spectrum would make a film even more formulaic, though - refusing to make any kind of statement (political or otherwise) with your artwork would definitely undermine any resonance it might have had.

As for delivering an environmentalist message - what if the problem isn't that "the right wing" aren't aware of certain environmental dangers but that they are and just don't care to do anything about them for whatever reason (whether out of personal gain or a refusal to believe the evidence)? Avatar already starts from the premise that humans strip-mined Earth into an uninhabitable sh*thole and have had to resort to colonising other planets for their natural resources, which definitely reads as a blunt metaphor for how America's military-industrial complex goes after other nations' fossil fuel reserves to prop up an industry that profits from those same finite resources at the expense of the world's environment (to say nothing of the implications of disappearing coal resources within the U.S. itself). In this context, making the military (and also the corporate stooge they serve) the villains simply makes narrative sense (and is driven home by Rodriguez's military character defecting out of righteous anger and becoming sympathetic in the process, emphasising that the problem isn't necessarily with the individual troops but with the higher-ups they serve - this was also the point of Aliens where the only human villain was the corporate stooge overseeing the operation).

Going back to what I said before about being unbiased - unfortunately, things have gotten to the point where taking care of the environment, which should seem like a completely bipartisan issue considering how it affects literally everyone, has become way too partisan for anyone's good. You can complain about how Avatar is too biased for its own good and won't "win over" anyone on the right because of that, but how much of that is the movie's fault? Does it have an obligation to dilute itself into even greater mediocrity for the sake of appealing to an audience that still isn't guaranteed to respond favourably to its message? Al Gore tried playing nice about the topic and we still had to deal with Manbearpig jokes for years afterwards. I'm not even sure how you'd even begin to make a film about addressing environmental issues without directly addressing the various connected sociopolitical issues - you can complain about Avatar being unoriginal (and, to be fair, it is), but that can't be helped if it has to go over the same anti-corporate/anti-military ground as other films have been doing for decades in order to make its point. Holding out for some magic "original" film that'll address the same problems without investigating and criticising the same causes is a very questionable line of thinking that's liable to result in a film that's even less effective in addressing environmental concerns than Avatar was.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

This is clearly a false dichotomy. The alternative to not making a film where political message comes before narrative integrity (or whatever) is not the polar opposite of avoiding making any kind of statement. The alternative is to make statements artfully, or to make broad statements that aren't so easily dated by the current politics.

What if the problem is that people have very little knowledge or curiosity about their ideological opponents and are content to make lots of uncharitable assumptions about them?

I think it's the rhetoric about the specific mechanisms of redress that's become overtly partisan. Very little "debate" about climate change is actually about the underlying issue at all. It's almost all done through multiple layers of proxy debates and virtue signaling.

Or maybe sometimes filmmakers have such vapid, unoriginal politics that making an original film that says everything they want to say is virtually impossible. The issue is not just the execution, but the decision to make that kind of film qua film when it's more of a $300 million pamphlet.

If a filmmaker effectively wants to make a documentary or a PSA, they should do that. If they try to fool people into listening to their rants by using a lot of expensive visual effects, they're open to all sorts of (perfectly fair) criticism for the ways in which that decision causes the story to suffer. And this shouldn't be a partisan issue, either, based on how much someone agrees with the clumsy message.

I don't think there has been a single US war that resulted into the capture of substantial natural resources in the past 150 years. Iraq certainly had nothing to do with oil: otherwise now there would be huge amounts of oil being produced there, instead production didn't change after invasion compared to before:

https://tradingeconomics.com/iraq/crude-oil-production

Anyway here is a serious analysis of the causes of Iraq war:

http://duckofminerva.com/2013/07/wha...rt-1-of-2.html

Anyway, I think Avatar's main historical parallel is with European colonialism from the 15th to 19th century and not modern warfare.

I think Avatar is a mediocre movie because it is so cliched. Like all characters are cliches and boring types of cliches. It's not even self conscious of being cliched. It it were a bit more of a conscious self deconstruction of conventional sci fi cliches I would have liked it much more.

From replicant to terminator. Mackenzie Davis will star in this.



http://variety.com/2018/film/news/ma...ot-1202719960/

I’d encourage everyone reading this to check out Halt and Catch Fire because she’s great in that show and it’s great overall.

delete any account
Its happening

In this timeline, Sarah, in a moment of desperation, tries to kill John while he sleeps.

wat

Delete your information before Skynet gets to it.

Not hyped at all. Cameron collaborating or executive producer is not the same as him directing. I think he’s a very good director if he was at the helm I’d be confident that it would be a good film at the least - he’s missing from the seat, why is he still directing his 8 avatar sequels or visiting the bottom of the ocean again....probe the script and franchise is out of gas and he knows it.

Avatar was alright to me. I thought that world had way more potential than Cameron was able to utilized in the story for the first film. I'm interested to see where he goes with it. It's essentially Dances With Wolves in space I don't think anyone is denying that. I don't mind if a film has cliches as long as the execution is good.

__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp

I can’t remember if I saw Avatar or not but after 10 years (holy crap) of hearing “it’s Dances with Wolves in space” or “it’s Pocahontas in space” or “it’s a slightly better version of what Ed Zwick’s been doing since Glory and in space” I wouldn’t be surprise if I haven’t and just concocted a plot out of all that and it’s bland.

Have to agree. Regardless of the originality factor and or any cliches it was the film as a whole that matters. He created a mythical type science fiction world that felt lived in and real. He made me feel for an alien species. Decent action, good pacing, very enjoyable I felt.

To tack on something superficial like a twist ending and claim originality - that a terrible practise, forget that, Tell a story and tell it well - it’s ok if it’s a similar type of tale.

Basically all of these... and with recycled sounds effects from Jurassic Park to boot.

__________________

That's the problem with building a franchise off The Terminator in the first place - it's an inherently open-and-shut story and T2, for all its greatness, can't help but undermine that. At this point, I'm not even sure that bringing Cameron back would make that big a difference, though it's still preferable to the run of anonymous hired-gun directors they've had so far. It'd be good to compromise and get in some fresh filmmakers that might actually have a vision and be able to follow through on it, but if that was the kind of thinking that resulted in this film being directed by the guy who made Deadpool then...

Sounds like we mostly agree unless I'm mistaken - in that Cameron is preferable to a lesser director although the series has presumably run its course in terms of Cameron's vision - and this would speak to his not returning to it. Even more preferable would be a equally talented director with their own vision.





In terms of whether I think the series can go anywhere. Well I can only give a personal opinion. I do appreciate T2 gives us THE or AN ending to the future war although I feel that could still be explored.......They squandered this opportunity in what I believe could and can be an exciting setting in Terminator Salvation. Unfortunately Melbourne Cricket Ground did not have the directing talent.



In terms of big budget earth based, post apocalyptic, robot war type films - they're not as common as I would have thought. Matrix revolutions is the only one that really comes to mind in terms of recency and of course.....Terminator Salvation.....


Or....maybe there's just no market for this type of film. Of course my interests may not translate to the masses.

Natalia Reyes, Mackenzie Davis and Linda Hamilton.

Reyes looks really out of place.

They can’t all be toned blonde people.

Yeah, but you have to admit, the 14 year old with luxurious locks and perfect skin look tends to stand out.

We all prioritize differently during the robopocalypse.